NUMBER 13-26-00657-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
IN RE SHELBY LYNETTE WELCH
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices Cron and Fonseca
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Tijerina1
Relator Shelby Lynette Welch filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus through
which she asserts, inter alia, that the trial court abused its discretion by: (1) “creating an
ongoing supervised-possession program while leaving essential dates, times, frequency,
progression, and telephone access to the discretion of the child's therapist and the father,
1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not
required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
rather than stating enforceable judicial terms or a lawful good-cause basis for intentionally
nonspecific terms”; (2) “making an unidentified treating therapist an ongoing gatekeeper
over possession and progression”; and (3) allowing the challenged ruling of July 21, 2026
“to operate as the current possession-and-access regime without resolving the
relationship between that ruling” and previous orders entered in the case. See TEX. FAM.
CODE §§ 153.006(c), 153.193. Relator has also filed an emergency motion for temporary
relief requesting that we stay the “enforcement or implementation of the July 21, 2026
possession-and-access provisions to the extent they are presently being treated as the
operative temporary access regime and to preserve a definite, enforceable parent-child
access framework while this original proceeding is pending.”
“Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that is available in limited circumstances
to correct clear errors in exceptional cases.” In re Rogers, 728 S.W.3d 717, 719 (Tex.
2026) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (citation modified); see In re Prudential Ins. Co. of
Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). To obtain a writ of mandamus,
the relator must show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and the relator lacks
an adequate remedy by appeal. In re Lapuerta, 732 S.W.3d 548, 555 (Tex. 2026) (orig.
proceeding). The relator bears the burden to establish the right to relief in an original
proceeding. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding)
(per curiam); see Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding);
see generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3, 52.7; see also Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426
(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (“Even a pro se
applicant for a writ of mandamus must show himself entitled to the extraordinary relief he
seeks.”). Because a trial court's temporary orders are not appealable, mandamus is an
2
appropriate vehicle for review. See In re Derzapf, 219 S.W.3d 327, 334–35 (Tex. 2007)
(orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re K.B., 683 S.W.3d 850, 855 (Tex. App.—Austin 2024,
orig. proceeding); In re D.D., 661 S.W.3d 608, 617 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2023, orig.
proceeding); In re Walser, 648 S.W.3d 442, 445 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2021, orig.
proceeding).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,
the record provided, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met her
burden to obtain relief. See In re Lapuerta, 732 S.W.3d at 555; In re H.E.B. Grocery Co.,
492 S.W.3d at 302. The trial court’s July 21, 2026 letter ruling does not indicate that the
trial court abused its discretion insofar as it is premised on the best interests of the child,
contains sufficiently specific terms and requirements, and explicitly requires that relator
be allowed “no less than two visits per month” with the child. See, e.g., In re J.J.R.S., 627
S.W.3d 211, 224 (Tex. 2021); In re J.H., No. 13-24-00235-CV, 2024 WL 3708941, at *2
(Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Aug. 8, 2024, no pet.) (mem. op.); In re J.Y., 528
S.W.3d 679, 691 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2017, no pet.). Accordingly, we deny the petition
for writ of mandamus and the emergency motion for temporary relief.
JAIME TIJERINA
Chief Justice
Delivered and filed on the
25th day of September, 2026.
3